Category Archives: British Broadcasting Corporation

British social policy defined

An idiocy wrapped in a lunacy wrapped in an absurdity, to produce misery and squalor

Dalrymple writes:

A tax on knowledge is a terrible thing, but a tax on ignorance, prejudice, evasion and half-truth is worse. That is what every British household with a television must pay, for the privilege of having the earnest but frivolous lucubrations of the BBC purveyed to it, whether it wants them or not.

This poll tax — or licence fee, as it is known — is the equivalent of nearly $200 per household a year, and is thus worth evading. Unfortunately, it costs nearly three times as much to catch evaders as the licence fees would have raised if paid. One proposal is to halve the licence fee for single mothers. Dalrymple comments:

In other words, we should subsidise a subsidy, in the name of a universal right to misinformation and trashy entertainment (and at the same time confer yet another incentive for single parenthood).

BBC Radio 1 should be abolished

Screen Shot 2016-08-19 at 10.01.54The existence, says Dalrymple, of the British state broadcaster’s wireless station ‘Radio 1’, which excretes popular music of the worst kind,

is an example of the pervasive corporatist corruption of the British State.

Dalrymple writes:

Nobody who scans through the stations on his car radio can possibly be under the misapprehension that a taste for pop music is not adequately catered for by commercial broadcasters. There is no excuse for a State-promoted and publicly-funded pop music station.

Subsidy of what requires no subsidy

BBC Radio 1 is a means by which

public money is transferred, by royalties and other payments, into the pockets of people who are already rich, in the same way that development aid is the means by which poor people in rich countries give money to rich people in poor countries.

The only justification for a public service broadcaster

is that it broadcasts programmes that would not otherwise be produced, and that are of high artistic or intellectual worth.

But

our cultural and political élites have lost confidence in their judgment as to what is of intrinsic intellectual and artistic value. The measure of the BBC’s success is therefore the size of its audiences. The BBC becomes demotic.

The State and parastatal organisations, Dalrymple observes,

have an inherent and unstoppable tendency to swell grotesquely, especially in our corporatist society which increasingly resembles India during the Licence Raj, in which the public service did not serve and private enterprise was not enterprising.

The crude and corrupt British state broadcaster

Screen Shot 2016-04-24 at 17.15.49For the right to receive television broadcasts in their homes, British households must pay a poll tax equivalent to about $210, which subsidises the British Broadcasting Corporation. 

This broadcasting system, writes Dalrymple, exemplifies two of the guiding principles of contemporary British public life:

  • the active promotion of adolescent vulgarity and sniggering crudity
  • the shameless looting of the public purse

Needless to say, the BBC

is losing viewers and listeners all the time; a growing proportion of the population never tunes in to any of its programmes.

The BBC certainly cannot claim any longer

that it produces, as it once did, the kind of intelligent programmes that commercial broadcasters shun.

Dalrymple points to vast payments made to the BBC’s fifth-rate ‘comedians’. These payments, he notes,

represent a gift from state functionaries (who themselves have also looted the public purse unmercifully)

on condition that the ‘comedians’

keep contributing to the ideologically-driven vulgarisation of the culture.

There has been a return, says Dalrymple,

to the 18th-century days of state patronage, with this difference: that the men who exercised it back then were men of taste and discrimination. They knew a Dr Johnson when they saw one.